These two often find it hard to co-operate. However on the Anarchist Voices Video project site and in the pages of Total Liberty magazine the two are to be seen together. See http://www.anarchistvoices.wetpaint.com/ and http://www.anarchistvoices.wetpaint.com/page/Total+Liberty+Magazine best wishes Jon Sais
anarchism is collective libertarianism is individualistic if no one's gonna tell anyone what to do, which do you think makes more sense, people doing things together and in consensus, or running around on their own, doing whatever they want?
I kind of agree with both. Anarchism: i think it can work on a very small scale, but in society, wouldn't it result in chaos, people killing each other? Libertarianism: I like this; less government involvement
Anarchy = lack of government It is not inherently collectivist. A lot of anarchists are just squeemish so they like to invent some uber-system of socialism without the hierarchy. Capitalism would flourish in an anarchist society.
Eh? Well, there certainly are forms of collectivist anarchism. Collectivist anarchism (Mikhail Bakunin) is one, and then there's communist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. But by labelling all anarchists "collectivists" you ignore a whole tradition of anarchism - individualist anarchism. Proudhon, Warren, Tucker, Spooner and anarcho-capitalists like Murray N. Rothbard can hardly be described as "collectivists". Oh, and "collectivist" anarchism (what is properly called social anarchism) is a somewhat misleading term. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca213 I should also point out that anarchism is not a different theory to libertarianism. In the socialist tradition, libertarianism refers to anarchism and certain types of Marxism e.g. Luxemburgism and council communism (Anton Pannekoek, for example.) In the capitalist tradition, anarchism is one of two types of libertarianism, the other being minarchism (minimal government libertarianism.)
When you understand that Capitalism is a market system, instead of a governmental system, maybe you'll understand how profoundly different Libertarianism and Anarchism are. If you can reconcile the ideas that Libertarianism is a form of government, and Anarchism is a form of no government, you're missing the obvious.
All definitions of these concepts are a function of socio-economics: Anarchy to the poor teenager means something completely different to what the CEO might be obliged to think. The poor teenager thinks its government oppression making him poor, perhaps by letting in immigrants; the CEO thinks a world without government is evil anarchy-he wants and needs the best government he can buy-the market threatens to burn down his arthritic business to the ground (human wants without direction arent easy to market to)
Not really. They're very similar, other than the leftist bias of most anarchists and the capitalist nature of Libertarianism.
Anarchy sounds nice, but wouldn't work. Libertarianism is more ideal. It allows for plenty of freedom while still protecting people.
Libertarians are mostly Minarchist (like myself), there are Anarchist Libertarians but they are actually very little.
